State v. Langford

• Decision Date: 20 December 2012
• Docket Number: No. 27195.,27195.
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. K.C. LANGFORD, III, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2010–173128
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

400 S.C. 421

735 S.E.2d 471

The STATE, Respondent,

v.K.C. LANGFORD, III, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2010–173128

No. 27195.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted April 18, 2012.

Decided Nov. 21, 2012.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 2012.

Held Unconstitutional

S.C. Code Ann. § 1–7–330.

Elizabeth Anne Franklin–Best, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Deputy Attorney General David A. Spencer, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

E. Charles Grose, Jr., of Greenwood, and Tara S. Waters, of Laurens, for Amicus Curiae South Carolina Public Defender Association.

Solicitor David M. Pascoe, Jr., of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae Solicitors' Association of South Carolina.

Justice HEARN.

We must determine whether Section 1–7–330 of the South Carolina Code (2005), which vests control of the criminal docket in the circuit solicitor, violates the separation of powers principle embodied in Article 1, Section 8 of the South Carolina Constitution. In 1980, we recognized that “[t]he authority of the court to grant continuances and to determine the order in which cases shall be heard is derived from its power to hear and decide cases.” Williams v. Bordon's, Inc., 274 S.C. 275, 279, 262 S.E.2d 881, 883 (1980). “This adjudicative power of the court carries with it the inherent power to control the order of its business to safeguard the rights of litigants.” Id. The time has now come for us to acknowledge that section 1–7–330 is at odds with this intrinsically judicial power. We therefore hold that section 1–7–330 violates the separation of powers and therefore is unconstitutional. However, because K.C. Langford, III, the Appellant herein, suffered no prejudice as a result of section 1–7–330, we affirm his convictions.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 14, 2008, Ji Quing Chen, along with his son, Li Guan Xin, and wife, Li Ai Ming, left the Chinese restaurant they own in Johnston, South Carolina, shortly after 10:00 p.m. and headed home. With them was a black bag containing the day's earnings. When they arrived home, Ji Quing stayed outside to water some plants while his wife and son entered the house. As he was tending to his garden, three men wearing masks came out from the bushes, forced him to the ground, hit him, and took his wallet. Concerned that his father had not yet come inside, Li Guan stepped out onto the porch to check on him. Once he was outside, the men forced Li Guan to the ground and asked where the restaurant's money was. He told them it was in the house, and one of the men went inside to find it. That man returned shortly with the black bag, and all three of them ran off. Because the men wore masks, the victims were unable to provide a useful description to law enforcement. Moreover, it does not appear the men left any forensic evidence during the commission of these crimes.

Investigators eventually met with Alvin Phillips, who in a statement dated September 28, 2008, confessed that he was one of the men who robbed the family. He further identified his cousin and Langford as the two remaining suspects. In the absence of an eye-witness identification and forensic evidence, Phillips' statement was the only evidence implicating the other men. Langford was arrested shortly thereafter on October 3, and he was indicted for criminal conspiracy a few months later in December 2008. However,he was not indicted for armed robbery, first degree burglary, and kidnapping until May 5, 2010, nineteen months following his arrest. He would remain incarcerated until his trial.

The State attributed the delay in procuring these indictments to difficulties in finding Chinese interpreters to translate what Ji Quing and his family, none of whom spoke English well, were relaying to investigators. Furthermore, Phillips retracted his statement implicating Langford while the two of them were housed in the same detention facility. He did so first in a signed statement dated January 29, 2009. On March 31, 2009, he signed another statement wherein he attested that the original statement he made to police in September 2008 was not true and he was not in the “right state of mind” when he made it. According to the State, Langford and his co-defendant pressured Phillips into recanting. In fact, Phillips testified Langford even brought him these later statements to sign. To avoid further intimidation, Phillips was moved to another facility. At some point thereafter, although it is not clear when, Phillips again agreed to testify against Langford.

On June 29, 2009, nearly nine months after he was taken into custody, Langford made what appears to be a pro se motion for a speedy trial. A hearing was held on May 17, 2010, and Langford renewed his motion at that time and joined it with a motion to dismiss.¹ This was the date on which the State originally planned to try Langford and his co-defendant, with Phillips serving as a cooperating witness who would testify against them. But the State received word that morning that Phillips decided to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination and would not testify at the trial. Allegedly, this was due to pressure Langford and Phillips' cousin continued to exert on him even after his transfer. Phillips now would not be available for cross-examination at trial, and the State therefore could not use his prior statement implicating Langford.² Because the State's case against Langford rested almost exclusively on Phillips' statement, without it the State effectively was prevented from going forward.

To remedy the situation, the State needed to try Phillips first or, presumably, obtain a guilty plea with the attendant waiver of his right to remain silent. However, Phillips had retained new counsel just eight days prior to the hearing who understandably was not ready to move forward during that term of court. The State therefore requested a continuance so it could proceed against Phillips at the next available opportunity, at which point it would then be able to try Langford. Although the court was “deeply concerned” by the twenty-month delay in the case, it found that “[n]one of this delay was occasioned by any impropriety on the part of the State.” It also recognized that, for all intents and purposes, the State could not proceed in the absence of Phillips' testimony. The court accordingly denied Langford's motion to dismiss and granted the State a continuance. However, cognizant of the delays which had already accrued, the court ordered the State to try Langford within nine months, and it further directed that Langford could renew his motion at that time if the State failed to do so.³

Phillips pled guilty in August 2010 and once again agreed to testify for the State. Langford's case was then called for trial on September 7, 2010, nearly two years after his arrest.⁴ The jury convicted Langford on all four charges, and the court sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment on the armed robbery, kidnapping, and first degree burglary charges, and five years' imprisonment on the civil conspiracy charges, all to run concurrently. This appeal followed. After the appeal was perfected, the court of appeals granted permission for the South Carolina Public Defender Association to file an amicus curiae brief challenging the constitutionality of section 1–7–330. This case subsequently was certified to us pursuant to Rule 204(b), SCACR.

ISSUES PRESENTED

I. Is section 1–7–330 constitutional?

II. Did Langford suffer any prejudice as a result of the solicitor controlling when his case would be called for trial?

LAW/ANALYSIS

I. SECTION 1–7–330

We agree with the Public Defender Association that section 1–7–330 is unconstitutional. Before we reach the merits of this question, however, we must first address the State's position that it is not preserved for our review.

Constitutional questions must be preserved like any other issue on appeal. In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 92, 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001). As the State correctly notes, this issue was not raised to or ruled upon by the circuit court. See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (stating an issue must have been raised to and ruled upon to be preserved for review). Moreover, Langford's statements of the issue on appeal do not raise this question. SeeRule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR (“Ordinarily, no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of the issues on appeal.”). Indeed, this issue is only before us by way of the amicus brief filed by the Public Defender Association, and our rules provide that an amicus brief “shall be limited to argument of the issues on appeal as presented by the parties.” Rule 213, SCACR (emphasis added).

Nevertheless, we previously have considered arguments raised only by an amicus when they concern a “matter of significant public interest.” Ex parte Brown, 393 S.C. 214, 216, 711 S.E.2d 899, 900 (2011). We stress that this exception to Rule 213 must be applied narrowly and only under the appropriate circumstances so as not to eviscerate the long-standing preservation requirements in our jurisprudence. However, we have little trouble concluding that who decides when criminal defendants in this State should be tried is a matter of significant public interest as envisioned by Brown.⁵ We therefore proceed to analyze the constitutionality of section 1–7–330.

Section 1–7–330 states in full:

The solicitors shall attend the courts of general sessions for their respective circuits. Preparation of the dockets for general sessions courts shall be exclusively vested in the circuit solicitor and the solicitor shall determine the order in which cases on the docket are called for trial. Provided, however, that no later than seven days prior to the beginning of each term of...